First reported 5 Aug 2013•Latest report 8 Jun 2026
Definition
What this concern includes
Includes crossing provision, siting, visibility, signals, markings, refuge, warnings and speed controls when the source ties them directly to pedestrian crossing safety.
Not included
General pedestrian-and-vehicle separation away from a crossing
Road hazards that do not concern pedestrian crossing safety
Reports
71
Distinct published reports
Individual concerns
113
A report can raise multiple concerns
Date range
2013–2026
First to latest report issue date
Stated actions
136
Described in published responses
Reports over time
Reports over time
Reports about this concern issued each year.
* 2026 is projected from reports observed to 7 Sep 2026.
Most frequent recipients
Most frequent recipients
Reports about this concern sent to each recipient.
National Highways11
Department for Transport6
Transport for London6
Network Rail5
Staffordshire County Council5
Birmingham City Council3
Recipient name withheld3
Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council2
Durham County Council2
Hampshire County Council2
Leeds City Council2
Nottinghamshire County Council2
Office of Rail and Road2
Sandwell Borough Council2
Surrey County Council2
English county council18
English metropolitan district council15
English unitary authority12
National road infrastructure body11
London borough council7
Ministerial department6
Public transport authority6
Rail infrastructure manager5
Type not available4
Private limited company3
Sub-organisation3
Public limited company2
Transport regulator2
Airport operator1
Coach operator1
Concerns and responses across reports
Only concerns grouped under this recurring concern are included. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.
Black Country
Concerns raised1
Pedestrian confusion about the presence of a further train on the opposite track
This report raised 2 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.4
Action
Progress the statutory process for permanent closure of Wallows Lane level crossing with Walsall Local Authority.
Stated by Network RailStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 11 February 2018.
Action
Maintain user safety instructions through stop, look and listen signage at Wallows Lane level crossing.
Stated by Network RailStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 11 February 2018.
Action
Use whistle boards requiring train drivers to sound horns to warn crossing users of approaching trains.
Stated by Network RailStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 11 February 2018.
Action
Urgently review revised Network Rail closure applications and supporting evidence, while continuing to provide guidance and support through the closure process.
Stated by Walsall Borough CouncilStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 11 February 2018.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.4
Position
No known product can show passive-crossing users which line an approaching train is travelling on.
Stated by Network RailUnable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.
Position
Network Rail must make the level-crossing closure application; the Council’s role is to advise and consider it as highway authority.
Stated by Walsall Borough CouncilRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
Position
The Council cannot convert the crossing into a controlled crossing because it is neither the landowner nor the operator and lacks legal authority.
Stated by Walsall Borough CouncilOutside remitThe respondent said that this matter was outside its role or authority.
Position
If technological safety improvements are required, Network Rail must consider converting the crossing into a controlled crossing as landowner and operator.
Stated by Walsall Borough CouncilRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
Inner North London
Concerns raised4
Confusing pedestrian crossing arrangement caused by two separate junctions
Lack of road markings indicating the direction pedestrians should look when crossing
Green-man phasing failing to provide clear pedestrian crossing signals across each carriageway
Missing louvre on the north-side green-man signal
This report raised 1 other concern. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.3
Action
Inspect the crossings and review their layout to identify changes that could further assist pedestrians.
Stated by Transport for LondonStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 27 February 2018.
Action
Install ‘Look left, Look right’ road markings at each pedestrian crossing at the junction.
Stated by Transport for LondonStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 27 February 2018.
Action
Fit additional louvres to two further pedestrian-signal aspects on the Pentonville Road crossing.
Stated by Transport for LondonStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 27 February 2018.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.2
Position
The staggered crossing arrangement is a common, efficient junction design that reduces pedestrian waiting and delays to other road users.
Stated by Transport for LondonDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.
Position
The pedestrian signals were functioning normally at the time of the collision, including the existing louvres intended to prevent confusion between crossings.
Stated by Transport for LondonDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.
Staffordshire South
Concerns raised3
Obstructed visibility at the pedestrian crossing
Speed limit increase before the pedestrian crossing
Uncontrolled pedestrian crossing on a busy dual carriageway
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
No linked response statements
No respondent-stated action or position is linked to these concerns in the published data.
Wiltshire and Swindon
Concerns raised3
Lack of safe visibility and crossing conditions for pedestrians at the junction
Insufficient all-red crossing time for pedestrians
Lack of accessible pedestrian crossing signals
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.3
Action
Analyze signal operation and traffic levels, assess alternatives, and develop preliminary technology and civil-engineering designs for pedestrian signal phases.
Stated by Swindon Borough CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 25 September 2017.
Action
Prepare and obtain approval for a briefing recommending further investigation and stakeholder and public consultation on the proposed pedestrian signal scheme.
Stated by Swindon Borough CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 25 September 2017.
Action
Conduct stakeholder and public consultation on the pedestrian signal proposals and analyze feedback to inform subsequent decisions.
Stated by Swindon Borough CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 25 September 2017.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.1
Position
The junction’s constrained sight lines and pavement space make alternative pedestrian safety options undeliverable or less beneficial than the proposed approach.
Stated by Swindon Borough CouncilUnable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.
Hampshire (North East)
Concerns raised1
Obscured visibility at the crossing caused by a fence
This report raised 3 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
No linked response statements
No respondent-stated action or position is linked to these concerns in the published data.
Birmingham and Solihull
Concerns raised2
Failure to maintain driver visibility of pedestrians approaching the road edge
Lack of a pedestrian crossing near the park gates
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.2
Action
Develop and consult on a local road safety scheme for Grove Lane, incorporating the report’s suggestions and stakeholder views.
Stated by Birmingham City CouncilStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 12 February 2017.
Action
Implement the Grove Lane road safety scheme, programmed for the 2017/18 financial year.
Stated by Birmingham City CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 12 February 2017.
Inner South London
Concerns raised1
Road layout misleading pedestrians and motorists about traffic direction
This report raised 2 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.4
Action
Install a raised zebra crossing south of the junction to provide safer pedestrian routes between Millennium Village, the existing school, Pilot Busway and West Parkside.
Stated by Greater London Authority and Royal Borough of Greenwich and Transport for LondonStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 19 August 2016.
Action
Improve junction signage and road markings to increase pedestrian awareness of oncoming traffic.
Stated by Greater London Authority and Royal Borough of Greenwich and Transport for LondonStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 19 August 2016.
Action
Complete feasibility work identifying conversion of the existing layout to a dual carriageway with bus lanes to address road-safety concerns.
Stated by Greater London Authority and Royal Borough of Greenwich and Transport for LondonStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 19 August 2016.
Action
Implement the proposed dual-carriageway and bus-lane changes to the road layout at the earliest opportunity, subject to considering consultation responses.
Stated by Greater London Authority and Royal Borough of Greenwich and Transport for LondonStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 19 August 2016.
Portsmouth and South East Hampshire
Concerns raised1
Pedestrians commonly cutting the corner and crossing from the wrong side of the traffic light
This report raised 1 other concern. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.2
Action
Bring forward replacement of the Pelican crossing with a Puffin crossing by three years.
Stated by Hampshire County CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 25 July 2016.
Action
Raise the tree crown on the northbound approach to improve crossing signal and pedestrian visibility.
Stated by Hampshire County CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 25 July 2016.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.1
Position
The proposed guard railing is not supported because no pedestrian injury accidents or complaints are recorded, and barriers may create additional safety risks.
Stated by Hampshire County CouncilDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.
Essex
Concerns raised2
Lack of prior warning of the pedestrian crossing for drivers exiting the roundabout
Inadequate visibility and conspicuity of the pedestrian/cycle path and crossing for drivers
This report raised 1 other concern. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.1
Position
The crossing type limits advance-signing options, and collision data does not support installing the proposed warning sign.
Stated by Essex County CouncilDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.
Surrey
Concerns raised1
Lack of a safe or controlled pedestrian crossing means for the A25 at Abinger Hammer
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.3
Action
Request funding and undertake a feasibility study for a safe pedestrian crossing facility at the location.
Stated by Surrey County CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 31 March 2016.
Action
Inspect the existing vehicle-activated sign east of Felday Road.
Stated by Surrey County CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 31 March 2016.
Action
Investigate providing signs warning drivers that pedestrians cross the A25 near the village green.
Stated by Surrey County CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 31 March 2016.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.3
Position
The fatal collision did not form part of a pattern of similar incidents supporting casualty-reduction justification for crossing facilities.
Stated by Surrey County CouncilDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.
Position
A formal crossing may be unsuitable because carriageway width, available land, lighting, power, conservation-area and environmental constraints limit feasible options.
Stated by Surrey County CouncilUnable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.
Position
County Councillors decide which highway schemes to prioritise and where available resources are allocated.
Stated by Surrey County CouncilRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
Pin
Get email alerts
Request correction
Includes crossing provision, siting, visibility, signals, markings, refuge, warnings and speed controls when the source ties them directly to pedestrian crossing safety.
